Reviewing for NeurodeskEDU

Reviewing for NeurodeskEDU#

Thank you for agreeing to review for NeurodeskEDU. We’re delighted to have your help. This document outlines our review guidelines and helps you understand what we look for when accepting a tutorial or example notebook into the NeurodeskEDU repository. Our review process takes place publicly via GitHub pull requests on the neurodeskedu repository. We like to think of NeurodeskEDU as a contributor-friendly resource. If the submitting author has followed best practices (clear instructions, working code, and proper attribution), then their review should be quick. For submissions that don’t quite meet the bar, please try to give clear, constructive feedback on how the author can improve. A key goal of NeurodeskEDU is to raise the quality of neuroimaging education resources, and you (the experienced reviewer) are well placed to help with that.

Guiding Principles#

A NeurodeskEDU review involves checking tutorial and notebook submissions against a set of criteria covering content quality, reproducibility, and clarity. Reviews should be objective, not subjective; based on the materials in the submission as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

Reviewers should:

  • Be respectful and constructive in all feedback.

  • Focus on whether the submission meets the review criteria below.

  • File suggestions or issues directly in the pull request thread.

  • When you have completed your review, leave a comment in the pull request saying so.

Time Expectations#

We ask reviewers to complete their reviews within 2 weeks. We generally ask the same commitment from contributors: they should respond to feedback within 1 week and complete requested changes within 2 weeks, unless otherwise negotiated with the maintainers (for example, if the changes requested are particularly substantial). If a contributor becomes unresponsive, the maintainers will follow up to keep the review moving forward. If you need more time to complete your review, please let us know, we’d rather have a thorough late review than a rushed one.

Conflict of Interest Policy#

The definition of a conflict of interest (COI) in peer review is a circumstance that makes you “unable to make an impartial scientific judgment or evaluation” (PNAS COI Policy). NeurodeskEDU is concerned with avoiding any actual conflicts of interest, and being sufficiently transparent that we avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest as well. As a reviewer (or maintainers), COIs are your present or previous association with any authors of a submission:

  • Recent collaborators (past four years) in funded research or work that is published.

  • Family members, business partners, and thesis student/advisor or mentor (lifetime).

  • Same organisation (past year) — for example, being employed at the same institution as the contributor.

  • Financial interests in software, tools, or services featured in the contribution.

If you have a conflict of interest with a submission, you should disclose the specific reason to the editor handling the pull request. This may lead to you not being able to review the submission, but some conflicts may be recorded and then waived, and if you think you are able to make an impartial assessment of the work, you should request that the conflict be waived. Examples of potentially waivable conflicts:

  • You and the contributor were both co-authors on a large consortium paper but did not actually collaborate directly.

  • You and the contributor worked together six years ago, but a paper from that collaboration was published two years ago due to publishing delays.

  • You and the contributor are both employed by the same very large organisation but in different units without any knowledge of each other.

Declaring actual, perceived, and potential conflicts of interest is required under professional ethics. If in doubt, disclose and let the editor decide.

Review Criteria#

When reviewing a tutorial or example notebook submission, please check the following.

What Happens After Review?#

Once all reviewers are satisfied that the submission meets the criteria above, the maintainers will change the status of the revision badge on the NeurodeskEDU site and reviewers’ Github handle will appear in the revision badge. Contributors are acknowledged on the Contributors page . To be listed, include your name and a short description in your pull request using this format.

Need Help?#

If you have questions or would like feedback before submitting:

We appreciate your contribution to the Neurodesk community and reproducible science.